Unbelievable!

Nobody could make this stuff up - it's just too crazy!

In "Watchdogone's" last rant, posted on November 21st, the "Watchdog" goes to the extreme to make a case that the the BOD in general and the "ex-President" specifically, stopped all path maintenance to "attack" the county and the developer thereby forcing them to do the maintenance.

Does "Watchdogone" think we have all forgotten that it was THE OWNER of the WATCHDOG website that filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Department of Agriculture.

Doesn't "Watchdogone" understand that it was this filing that halted all attempts to control the weeds on the path while a full investigation was conducted and it was during this time that the weeds grew out of control.

Of course the truth of the matter makes for reduced ability to play the blame game and conduct personal attacks.

Another Man of Integrity Steps Down. Can You Blame Him?

Mr. Kent Duffy has resigned, effectively immediately, in response to the insultingly contemptuous attack posted on the “Watchdog” website earlier today.

Thank goodness you won’t have to read this affront to the hard work and dedication of Kent because the posting was removed shortly after he submitted his resignation.

I can’t help but wonder why it was removed so quickly. Perhaps it was because of the outcry of the good and reasonable people in the subdivision or maybe the posting was no longer necessary since the new majority has finally run off every BOD member who didn’t agree with their agenda.

Let me state it another way, every BOD member elected last February, except the person who had their name “advertized” in last winter’s newsletter, has chosen to move on because of the baseless, abusive lies, misrepresentations, and innuendos that are posted on the “watchdog” website.

Budget Debate

At last night’s BOD meeting there was considerable debate about the 2009 budget, how the numbers were calculated, and what should be the 2009 assessment.

The treasurer stated he calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21, 2008 BOD meeting which included adjustments for inflation. When determining the 2009 assessment Mr. Duffy stated we should use the formula dictated in the bylaws (if there is one). Our 1st VP was adamant that there is no requirement to calculate the assessments based on a formula in the bylaws. Both of our VP’s were unwavering on the position that the 2009 assessment should be $275.00.

Mr. Duffy is correct. Article VII, Section 1, of our bylaws specifically mandate that the budget be calculated based on the following – start with the estimated cost of taxes, wages, materials, insurance, services, and supplies which will be required in the ensuing year. To this amount the BOD has the authority to add a “reasonable amount” for “a reserve for contingencies and replacements”. The BOD is also required to take into account any estimated net cash income. That final figure becomes the “estimated cash requirement” which “shall be assessed equally to the lot owners of the Estate of Millbrook”.

Whereas Mr. Duffy calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21 BOD meeting and calculated in accordance with the bylaws it seems only logical to adjust the assessments accordingly.

Unfortunately the VP’s motioned and passed a budget proposal which includes a $275.00 assessment. This assessment is based on previous years assessments without any consideration for projected expenses. This method of calculation is an absolute violation of our bylaws. The Treasurer voted against the motion.

I have no problem with a $275.00 assessment provided it is calculated according to our bylaws. Our BOD needs to adjust the budgeted expense numbers to justify the $275.00 assessment or they need to accept the lower assessments dictated by the budget developed in accordance with the guidelines they set up at the October 21 BOD meeting.

Or they could just ignore the bylaws.

What’s the Cost?

Our association has retained the services of an attorney who specializes in HOA law to investigate and report back to the association on the Unit 3 & 4 situation. This will cost the association at least $220 per billable hour and will be paid out of the general funds of the association.

I believe we all have a vested interest in determining the status of our HOA but I do have some questions regarding the expense.

The truth is that the association DID NOT cause the problem. It was either the developer or his legal representative.

So, why are we paying the bills for this investigation? Is the developer even aware of the situation? Has our BOD asked the developer to get involved?

I have asked the BOD to address these questions in a timely manner. I’ll let you know their response as soon as I hear back.

Lawyer at Meeting to Answer Questions

Last nights BOD meeting opened with a question and answer period. A special guest at the meeting was Mr. W. Knees who has been selected by the BOD to investigate the status of Units 3 & 4 as being subject to the CCR’s. He was there at the request of the BOD and when asked specifically why Mr. Knees was invited our 1st VP stated he was there to answer our questions.

There was only one problem – He didn’t have any answers.

Well, that’s not completely true. When asked directly, he did tell the membership that we are paying him $220 - $240/hour and that we are in fact paying his travel time.

That’s a pretty hefty price to pay only to be told what we already know.

My Time is too Valuable

Good Evening-

Welcome back to the dark ages.

For the last week and a half I have been trying to get some verification that the research work done at the county recorder's office by our association VP is accurate. I suspected from the beginning that "incomplete" would be a kind way to describe her research but she has insisted from the start that 1) she was right, and 2) she didn't have to share her documentation with anyone.

Our President has gone so far as to publish the VP's findings stating “diligent research” has been accomplished and that the research has “revealed that there is no basis for the claims”. The President has also claimed that since the VP paid the county for cost of the documents that the BOD has no right to review the documents until the association reimburses the VP the costs charged by the county.

We all know for a fact the association has hired an attorney to do the job right but I haven't seen any updates on either website letting us know that maybe things aren't so cut and dried as we were led to believe.

For those on the BOD who questioned the accuracy of the research and insisted on reviewing the documentation the reward has been a freeze job.

Having fallen out of grace of the majority of the BOD, I have been shut out of all communication with the BOD. I am not included in any emails, not allowed any knowledge of association business, and not responded to in any manner. My phone calls and emails are ignored.

This is not my idea of how an association should be run. Just imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed; can you say lawsuit?

You might agree or disagree with me regarding how the association should be managed but the bottom line is my time is too valuable. There are too many wonderful people and interesting opportunities in my life to waste time dealing with the mindset of the new majority.

Therefore I have tendered my resignation effective today. My sincere thanks to all - every single member - for the opportunity to serve on the BOD. I know there have been many who disagreed but until the "October Surprise" came to light I always felt there was enough of a professional attitude amongst the BOD that we could overcome our differences. I was wrong.

Welcome back to the days when we will be told only what the powers in charge want us to know and not one minute before they want us to know it.

Below is the text of the letter I sent to the BOD earlier today.

Tony Robinson



November 8, 2008

Estates of Millbrook HOA
Attention: BOD
PO Box 101
Millbrook, IL 60536

Dear BOD Members,

Be advised that I am resigning my position as member of the BOD effective at the conclusion of the special called BOD meeting on November 8, 2008. In the event this meeting does not occur then my resignation will be effective at 8:40am on the same day.

Sincerely,

/s/ AD Robinson

Thoughts and Questions to Consider as you approach tomorrow's meeting

The Problem – There is a possibility that the developer did not include Units 3 & 4 in the HOA.

Investigation – This has been looked into by a number of different people.

1. VP Mueller was assigned to investigate this with the county on behalf of the association. Her findings are posted on the Yahoo website. Her report back to the President parallels the statement published in the October Newsletter.

2. BOD member Tony Robinson checked into this independently of Ms Mueller, his findings were different.

3. A member living in the community checked into this independently of both Ms Mueller and Mr. Robinson, his findings were different that Ms Mueller’s.


Questions for DePaulo

1. Is this true?
2. Was it intentional?
3. What, if anything, are you willing to do about helping us resolve the situation?


Questions for the BOD

1. What is the status of the investigation as of today?
2. Who is representing the BOD in this investigation?
3. Has the association retained the services of a lawyer in this matter?
4. Who is he/she?
5. Does this lawyer have any previous history in dealing with the developer? In this matter?
6. Has this ever happened before? If so was there a legal precedence established in that case?
7. What is the status of the BOD itself? Are BOD members living Units 3 & 4 legally BOD members?
8. Should those BOD members living in Units 3 & 4 recuse themselves from deciding any issues related to this matter due to a potential conflict of interest?

“IF” questions to consider if the claims are true

1. Who is responsible? Developer? Attorney working for the developer? HOA?
2. Exactly which lots are in and which are out of the HOA?
3. What is the status of the common property? In or out of the HOA?
4. Who owns the common property now? Has it been deeded to the HOA?
5. If Unit 3 & 4 are not in the association will they still have access to the common property?
6. What if we want to be in the HOA but live in Unit 3 or 4?
7. If we live in Unit 1 or 2, how does this affect us?
8. How will affect our dues?

There are many more questions that could be asked at this point but not all need to be asnwered until we get some more information. Please continue to press your elected BOD for complete disclosure of all facts and information.

Please come to tomorrow' s meeting with an open mind. There is no reason to assume any position is correct but we need to start getting input from the association membership.

An informed membership is key to an effective HOA

Tony Robinson